Always a tricky fish to try and fry, the second instalment of a growing franchise, recognising that the same as before just won't do, a need to break away from what's started and to brew, there's still plenty of gore and a great deal of splatter, without CGI, lots of matter gets scattered, some inconsistency, with the early story, but it soon moves along, although there's not really a song (why would there be), must have been lots of fun, making monsters to gun, making potions from notions, appendages that can run, it's quite dated today, though it had been ground breaking, but I enjoyed going back, got more hooked on the making - and It didn't make me laugh, and never did, and there's a good reason for that!!!

This is one of the few horror movies I truly enjoyed, because the film offers a great combination of horror and comedy. It adds up to a very entertaining 85 minutes.

There's a lot to like in this kinda-goofy movie: nice visuals; good humor to counteract the scariness and gore of a horror story; a small amount of ridiculous theology compare to what usually is offered in this genre, and some totally outrageous scenes. They include a woman's head loose and then biting a man's hand with the rest of her body running around with a chainsaw; a hand with a mind of it's own, monster-type grandma and grandpa in the cellar, chase scenes through a forest with trees coming to life and attacking people, on and on....wild, wild stuff.

My main complaint is not enough lulls. There is too much action, and it's so intense it's almost too much to watch in one continuous sitting even with its fairly short length. One needs a break once in a while!

There is no credibility in here, but that's okay since I think most of this is played for laughs more than horror. Bruce Campell suffers physical damage that would have killed a person many times but within seconds, he's back to normal. Campell, by the way, must have set the all-time record for making rubber-faced wild faces in a movie, more than Jim Carrey. However, this movie certainly isn't one to be scrutinized for realism. You have to look at it, with all the gory scenes and shocking violence as not much more than just tongue-in-cheek satire on horror movies. It's great fun.

Despite Sam Raimi's ultra low-budget film "The Evil Dead" becoming a bit of a cult favorite, somehow this did not catapult Raimi to A-director status and he had a hard time financing this follow-up movie. Oddly, however, Stephen King came to the rescue. Apparently he loved the first movie and wanted to see a sequel, so he financed this film. But it's obvious that this sequel is STILL a cheapo movie.

The story appears to pick up exactly where the first movie ended. If you see them one after the other, you will notice a few differences...the cabin, the age of Bruce Campbell and a few other details. While it appeared as if Ash (Campbell) destroyed the evil dead by dismembering them and burning "The Book of the Dead", somehow this is NOT the case and once again the demons begin attacking once again. But, because most of his friends were completely dismembered, the demons actually possess his hand...leading Ash to begin fighting with himself. This makes it obvious that the tone of the second film is more comedic than the first.

While Ash is busy fighting off evil, a couple Yuppie-type researchers are heading to this same cabin. Apparently, they are interested in the book and the professor's research. Eventually, they find their way there along with a couple idiots and now it's these five versus evil...much like the first film.

The movie uses many gallons of blood just like the first film and once again, Ash is drenched from head to toe in blood. The amount of blood makes the film pretty unrealistic...which is good because if it was ultra-realistic it would be much tougher to watch. In addition, the film uses more stop-motion than the first film...and I must say that it's incredibly cheesy. The budget constraints of the movie are VERY obvious in these scenes.

Bruce Campbell reportedly liked this film best of the various Evil Dead films, though I know some fans prefer the funnier "Army of Darkness". I could see why Campbell liked this second one, as it didn't have all the problems getting made like the first one...where he had to put up his own money just to get the film completed...which is odd for an actor to do.

My feeling about both "Evil Dead" and "Evil Dead II" is that young filmmakers would be very well served to watch these films...along with other horror films such as "Night of the Living Dead" (the 1968 version) and "Bad Taste" as they are great examples of horror done on the cheap. Plus, Sam Raimi, George Romero and Peter Jackson all went on to excellent careers in films thanks to the cult-like following these movies received. So, while they might be cheesy and cheap, they prove that these are not serious problems if you can still manage to construct an enjoyable horror film. While I am not a fan of gore horror, I do certainly respect what these movies achieved and think they are well worth your time.